My understanding is to assume the premise you are trying to prove in the act of proving it.
The one being accused of begging the question said construction is a necessary activity because society says it is necessary. But that doesn't mean it is necessary, which is what the law would seem to require.
The conclusion was that just because being a Tesla worker and being a construction worker are roughly equally safe doesn't mean that both automatically should re-open.
Construction being more valuable for society than a Model 3 was part of the premise.
You took them to mean "Construction is more valuable for society -> Construction is more valuable for society" but that was not the claim.
My understanding is to assume the premise you are trying to prove in the act of proving it.
The one being accused of begging the question said construction is a necessary activity because society says it is necessary. But that doesn't mean it is necessary, which is what the law would seem to require.