Much obliged, fellows! I'm happy to hear that the article holds value to you =).
@DiegoPalacios That summation actually brings up an interesting point in itself: that it's possible to provide too many questions and not enough answers. I never watched Lost, but what I've heard suggests that a lot of fans thought it had a problem with that for a while.
A show that I enjoyed for a time, but recently abandoned is Lucifer, based on (but very different from) the graphic novel of the same name. It's a show with a premise that inherently raises immense implications: God is real, angels are real, much of what's written in the Bible is true. But the questions raised by those implications (Why's God so quiet? Why do angels look so human (or vice versa)? Where the hell's Jesus? I could go on.) had gone largely ignored up to the point that I dropped off in season 3.
Instead, we get snail-paced plots about one angel (of only 3 shown) slowly losing his powers (or not; it's unclear) while Lucifer falls in love with a human whose presence cancels out his (ill-defined) powers. There are other things, but storylines like that dominate a show about literal immortals walking the Earth. Honestly, I could (and likely will) write a whole different article about all the problems with that xD.
I digress. Basically, raise questions, but raise the right questions and make sure to answer some as the plot gives rise to others. Questions large enough to cause existential crises in-story or out should be handled with care; give an unsatisfying answer or no answer at all, and you've taken a sledgehammer to the foundation your story's built on. (An exception could be made for comedy or horror, both of which can pull that sort of ploy to elicit the emotion they intend for the audience.)