By Agendas: Diana Ingerainen

The style is analytical and persuasive. It begins with an emotional introduction (the warmth of home, the fear of going hungry) but quickly transitions to economic and ethical arguments. It utilizes a rhetorical question ("Is it worth giving up hundreds of millions?") and ends with a clear conclusion: the VAT reduction is costly, inefficient, and unfair. The tone is serious and worried, yet the argumentation remains logical.

The rhetorical style is empathetic and constructive, repeatedly emphasizing the need for care and humane assistance so that no one is left isolated. The speaker employs logical argumentation to redirect the focus from security to the social sphere, all while maintaining a formal and respectful tone before the Riigikogu (Parliament). He/She uses evocative phrases such as "the core of a caring state" and "avoidable suffering."

Insufficient data

The style is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on the neutral presentation of the Finance Committee's work and voting results. The speaker employs logical and data-driven arguments, highlighting the risk of a budget deficit and the ultimate inefficiency of tax cuts. Emotionally, concern is expressed for single parents and pensioners, but the solutions are strictly rational (direct subsidies).

The rhetorical style is formal and question-based, respectfully addressing the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Minister. The tone is analytical and logical, focusing on the rational argument that rapid development requires flexible rules. Emotional or narrative elements are absent.

The speaking style is formal, neutral, and procedural. The presenter focuses on facts and reporting (dates, decisions, participants), avoiding emotional or rhetorical techniques. The language is direct, and the objective is to convey information regarding the results of the commission's work.

The rhetorical style is formal, substantive, and procedural, focusing on presenting the scope of the commission's decisions and the draft proposal. The speaker employs logical arguments, emphasizing gaps in knowledge (the extent of the impacts) and the necessity of a comprehensive overview. The tone is measured and neutral, answering questions directly and referencing the commission's deliberations.

The speaking style is formal, serious, and emphasizes the urgency of the topic ("it is crucial not to stagnate"). Logical argumentation is employed (scarcity of resources, the necessity of compromise), but it also appeals to emotional values such as security and stability. The tone is persuasive and geared toward securing the support of colleagues.

The style is formal, respectfully addressing both the Chair and the Minister. The tone is direct and inquisitive, blending agreement with a colleague's criticism concerning the delay of the draft legislation.

The rhetorical style is professional, grateful, and optimistic, beginning with an expression of thanks and conveying hope for the bill's progression. The speaker balances the ethical and "artistic" aspects of a doctor's work with concrete procedural solutions and assurances (e.g., the efficacy of palliative care).

The style is formal, neutral, and strictly informative, addressing the Chairman of the Riigikogu and colleagues. The speech is brief and focuses on conveying facts, presenting the committee's decisions and voting results without emotional or logical arguments. He/She uses clear and direct language, emphasizing consensus and non-consensus decisions.

The style of address is extremely formal, neutral, and informative, characteristic of a rapporteur for a steering committee. Emphasis is placed on facts and the enumeration of procedural decisions, repeatedly employing the phrase "it was decided by consensus." Emotional or rhetorical devices are absent; the presentation is logical and substantive.

The style of the speech is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on conveying the decisions and discussions of the Finance Committee. Emphasis is placed on logical argumentation and the presentation of facts (voting results, dates), while avoiding emotional appeals. The speaker emphasizes their role as a representative directed by the committee.

Rhetorical Style: The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, focusing on the communication of the steering committee's work and decisions. The speaker employs logical arguments, referencing analyses conducted by researchers and citing international examples, while maintaining a neutral and measured tone.

The address is formal and ceremonial, fulfilling the procedural requirement for taking the oath of office. The style is concise and straightforward, incorporating a standard greeting ("Tervist!") and emphasizing loyalty to the constitution.