Recent studies investigated the challenge of assessing the strength of a given claim extracted from a dataset, particularly the claim's potential of being misleading and cherry-picked. We focus on claims that compare answers to an aggregate query posed on a view that selects tuples. The strength of a claim amounts to the question of how likely it is that the view is carefully chosen to support the claim, whereas less careful choices would lead to contradictory claims. We embark on the study of the reverse task that offers a complementary angle in the critical assessment of data-based claims: given a claim, find useful supporting views. The goal of this task is twofold. On the one hand, we aim to assist users in finding significant evidence of phenomena of interest. On the other hand, we wish to provide them with machinery to criticize or counter given claims by extracting evidence of opposing statements. To be effective, the supporting sub-population should be significant and defined by a "natural" view. We discuss several measures of naturalness and propose ways of extracting the best views under each measure (and combinations thereof). The main challenge is the computational cost, as naïve search is infeasible. We devise anytime algorithms that deploy two main steps: (1) a preliminary construction of a ranked list of attribute combinations that are assessed using fast-to-compute features, and (2) an efficient search for the actual views based on each attribute combination. We present a thorough experimental study that shows the effectiveness of our algorithms in terms of quality and execution cost. We also present a user study to assess the usefulness of the naturalness measures.