Prompt: "Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated."
--------------------------------------------
The argument states that a society will stagnate without new ideas and that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. From this statement, the argument concludes that, if a society is to thrive, then all limits on the freedom of expression should be eliminated. This argument is unconvincing as it stands for reasons stated below.

First of all, the argument states that without new ideas any society will stagnate. It is entirely possible that a society can be improved based on old ideas that are implemented in other societies, ideas that have worked successfully in the past. The argument does not discuss other possibilities to improve the society, nor does is provide explanation as to why those other alternatives will not improve a society.

Second, the argument continues to state that new ideas can only by introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. This is a very vague claim. Although it may be true that freedom of expression can help to some extent to introduce new ideas, this may not be the only cause.

Finally, the argument asserts that, if a society is to thrive, then all limits on the freedom of expression should be eliminated. This is a very strong conclusion stemmed from a very weak argument. In this argument, the author makes an assumption that, having even some limit on the freedom of expression will not allow a society to thrive. However, the argument does not provide reasons for such a strong claim. It is entirely possible that not having any limit may be detrimental to the society, i.e., by having limitless freedom of expression, a person could oppose a new idea brought up a another person and this not allow the new idea to be implemented.

In sum, the argument that supports the conclusion is very weak, while the conclusion that stemmed from the argument is very strong. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide more explanations such as old working ideas are not helpful to a society, freedom of expression is the only means to obtain new ideas, and even a small limit on the freedom of expression will not allow new ideas to be generated, and this in turn will not allow a society to thrive.