Does Gaunilo’s counter to Anselm’s ontological argument succeed in showing that argument to be either invalid or unsound? If you think so, explain either what’s wrong with the argument’s logic (which would make the argument invalid), or what’s wrong with one of the argument’s premises (which would make the argument unsound). If you think Gaunilo’s counter does not show Anselm’s argument to be either invalid or unsound, explain how the counter misses the mark (in other words, how it misunderstands Anselm’s argument).