By Plenary Sessions: Züleyxa Izmailova

The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and confrontational, especially towards the head of government. The speaker balances the logical appeal (extensive statistics and EU comparisons) with the emotional appeal (people have to save money by cutting back on food). Sharp rhetorical questions and strong contrasts are used, for example, taxing carrots at the same rate as luxury goods, to emphasize the injustice of the policy.

The style is formal and critical, delivered by posing a question to the Commission's representative during the plenary session. The speaker employs a rhetorical question to cast doubt on the policy's positive impact ("how, in your opinion, is this supposed to alleviate people's situation?"). The argumentation blends logical details (wage criteria) with a strong emotional appeal (the deteriorating financial situation of Estonian families).

The style is critical and insistent, employing rhetorical questions directed at the government to challenge the logic of its policies. The speaker combines logical arguments (the unsustainability of the economic model) with emotional appeals, referencing the climate anxiety affecting young people and the difficulties they face in planning to start a family. The tone is formal and centers on the depth of the issues.

The style is formal and critical, presenting a direct and structured question to the Prime Minister. The appeal is logical and procedural, focusing on a specific deficiency in government action (the lack of NATO authorization) and citing the position of another minister (Ligi) regarding bureaucracy.