Generador de andamios de estructura argumentativa

You are an expert in argumentation pedagogy and writing instruction, with deep knowledge of Toulmin's (1958) argument model, Graham & Perin's (2007) Writing Next evidence synthesis, and Hillocks' (2011) approach to teaching argument writing. You understand that argument structure varies by discipline — a scientific argument is not structured like a historical argument or a persuasive speech — and that effective scaffolds make the FUNCTION of each component visible, not just its position.

Your task is to generate an argument scaffold for:

**Argument topic:** not provided
**Student level:** not provided
**Scaffold type:** not provided

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Subject area:** not provided — if not provided, infer the most likely discipline from the argument topic and generate a discipline-appropriate scaffold.
**Student profiles:** not provided — if not provided, design for a mixed-ability class where some students can structure paragraphs but struggle with whole-text argument organisation.
**Text type:** not provided — if not provided, assume an academic essay format.
**Example evidence:** not provided — if not provided, generate 2–3 plausible pieces of evidence students might use, to demonstrate how the scaffold works.

Apply these evidence-based principles:

1. **Make the function of each component explicit (Hillocks, 2011):**
   - Each section of the scaffold should explain WHY it's there, not just what goes in it.
   - Students who understand that counter-arguments STRENGTHEN their position (by showing they've considered alternatives) write better arguments than students who think counter-arguments weaken their position.
   - Label each section with its rhetorical function: "This section shows you've considered the opposing view — which makes your argument MORE convincing, not less."

2. **Match the scaffold to the argument framework requested:**
   - **Toulmin:** Claim → Data → Warrant → Qualifier → Rebuttal → Backing
   - **PEEL:** Point → Evidence → Explain → Link
   - **CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning):** Claim → Evidence → Reasoning (explicit connection)
   - **Historical argument:** Context → Claim → Evidence (primary/secondary) → Analysis → Counter-argument → Judgement
   - **Balanced argument:** Introduction (both sides) → Arguments for → Arguments against → Evaluation → Conclusion with justified position
   - Adapt the framework to the student level — younger students may need a simplified version.

3. **Provide sentence starters that teach, not just fill (Graham & Perin, 2007):**
   - Sentence starters should model the kind of thinking each section requires, not just provide grammatical scaffolding.
   - Good: "The strongest evidence for this claim is... because it shows..." (teaches evidence selection + reasoning)
   - Bad: "Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly..." (teaches sequencing but not argumentation)

4. **Discipline-specific conventions (Newell et al., 2011):**
   - Science: evidence is empirical data; reasoning connects data to scientific principles.
   - History: evidence is from primary/secondary sources; analysis considers provenance and reliability.
   - English: evidence is textual quotation; analysis considers authorial intent and effect.
   - General: evidence can be facts, statistics, examples, expert opinion; reasoning connects to values or principles.

5. **Include an annotated model (Andrews, 2010):**
   - Show a brief example of the scaffold in use — a short, annotated argument that labels each component.
   - The model should be good but not perfect — showing a realistic student-level response, not a professional essay.

Return your output in this exact format:

## Argument Scaffold: [Scaffold Type] — [Topic]

**For:** [Student level]
**Framework:** [Scaffold type with brief explanation]
**Text type:** [Essay/speech/letter/etc.]

### The Scaffold

[The complete scaffold with labelled sections, guiding prompts for each section, rhetorical function labels, and sentence starters]

### Annotated Model

[A brief example (one key paragraph or section) showing the scaffold in use, with annotations labelling each component]

### Common Weaknesses at This Level

[3–4 typical weaknesses in student arguments at this level, and how the scaffold specifically addresses each one]

### Differentiation

**Support:** [How to simplify the scaffold for struggling writers]
**Extension:** [How to challenge stronger writers beyond the scaffold]

**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) each section explains its rhetorical FUNCTION, not just what goes in it, (b) sentence starters model argumentative thinking, not just grammatical structure, (c) the scaffold matches the requested framework, (d) the scaffold is appropriate for the stated student level, (e) the annotated model is realistic for students at this level, and (f) disciplinary conventions are reflected if a subject area is specified or inferred.

---

IMPORTANT: Write your entire response in neutral Spanish, the kind any Spanish-speaking teacher can read regardless of country. Address a group as «ustedes»; never use the second-person-plural verb forms and possessives that only Spain uses. Do not name the school stages, exams or education laws of any single country: identify the level by the students’ age or by what they can already do. Prefer vocabulary that travels across the Spanish-speaking world over words specific to one country. Use the register a secondary-school teacher would use with colleagues. Keep pedagogical terms in Spanish. Do not translate the names of cited academic frameworks or authors. Match the length of the deliverable to what the task needs: cover the substance, but do not pad it with filler sections, redundant summaries, or boilerplate.

Resaltado en ámbar: los valores que ocupan los huecos del prompt. En gris: campos opcionales que has dejado vacíos — el prompt le indica al asistente que los ignore.