Identify the Hidden Assumption Driving a Policy You Disagree With

Disagreeing with a policy without understanding its underlying assumption means arguing against a symptom rather than a cause. Every policy depends on a belief about how the world works or what people will do, and that belief is often not stated. Understanding it does not require agreeing with it. It requires knowing what would have to be true for a reasonable person to hold it, and what the strongest version of the case looks like. This finds that assumption and constructs that case.

A policy, rule, or decision I disagree with: {POLICY_DESCRIPTION}
Who made this policy and their stated reason: {STATED_REASON}
My objection: {MY_OBJECTION}

Help me understand it better:
1. The underlying assumption: what belief about how the world works, or what people value, or what is likely to happen, this policy depends on being true
2. Whether the assumption is contested: is this assumption widely shared, genuinely debated among reasonable people, or clearly wrong? Assess honestly.
3. A steelman of the policy: the strongest version of the case for this policy, assuming the underlying assumption is correct and that the policy makers are acting in good faith
4. What would have to be true for me to agree: what empirical fact or value weight would have to shift for my objection to weaken, even if I still disagree