Psychiatrist: In treating first-year students at this university, I have noticed that those reporting the highest levels of spending on recreation score at about the same level on standard screening instruments for anxiety and depression as those reporting the lowest levels of spending on recreation.
Conclusion
1st yr students who spend a lot of $$ on recreation could reduce that spending without increasing their anxiety or depression.
Evidence
the 1st yr students who spend a lot of $$ on recreation score at about the same level for anxiety / depression as do those who spend the lowest on recreation.
Evaluation
In an Anti-Causal argument such as this, it's usually two groups of people being compared. Since they achieve the same result (score the same on anxiety / depression), the author assumes that some difference (spending lots of $ on recreation vs. spending little) makes no causal difference.
We weaken these arguments by making the groups unfair to compare to begin with. Maybe the students who spend lots of money on recreation would be WAY WORSE if they didn't spend that money. (e.g. , "He's well adjusted because he goes to therapy.")
Goal
Since we would weaken this argument by pointing out differences that make the spend more group seem more prone to anxiety / depression, we can expect strengthen answers that equalize out these factors (or make the spend less group seem more prone).
There also might be an answer that just corroborates the anti-causal conclusion, i.e. it provides more reason to believe that spending $ on rec is not likely to decrease your anxiety / depression.