I was reading 'How Did Scientists Discover a Massive Hole in the Great Pyramid?' in Slate...
Now, a new room has been discovered in a Pyramid.
The real question, however, is what’s inside the big room? Is it a hoard of valuable, rare treasure from the era of the Fourth Dynasty? A special room for ceremonial purposes or part of the burial rituals for Khufu? The deceased pharaoh’s missing mummy itself? The discovery really just creates more questions than answers. “Being inaccessible, we still don’t know about any possible entrance points, and there may not be any, if this is some sort of construction gap,” says Harvard University–based Egyptologist Peter Der Manuelian. Moreover, he emphasizes, the muons don’t shed light about the void’s individual chambers (if any), form, size, or any possible objects (emphasis mine).
The writer says "The discovery really just creates more questions than answers" but something is wrong there; There seems to be some implication which is not suitable for this situation.
I think, if there were some mystery or unsolved Problem, and somebody gave some "unsatisfactory" explanation, then we could claim "this [just] creates more questions than answers", implying that the explanation is not sufficient or not complete; we might be better off without this explanation.
In the case of a new room in a Pyramid, there may be new questions to be asked, but are we better off without this discovery ? Does it require the phrase "just creates more questions" ?