By Plenary Sessions: Aleksei Jevgrafov

The rhetorical style is serious, critical, and insistent, combining logical, data-based arguments with an emotional appeal to responsibility and the well-being of the Estonian people. The speaker employs a clear contrast (two choices) to the government's policy and maintains a formal tone, addressing the minister and colleagues directly.

The rhetorical style is formal and concerned, relying on logical appeal and concrete facts (in four out of six schools, fewer than half of the teachers meet the requirements). Emotional emphasis is used ("I dread thinking about it") to highlight the seriousness of the decline in educational quality and the value of children.

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, employing emotional appeals ("good Estonian people") and sharp rhetorical questions directed at the government. The speaker balances social concerns (the burden placed on the elderly and low-income individuals) with logical and economic arguments regarding energy security. The overall tone is urgent and demands immediate action to protect the interests of the people.

The rhetorical style is serious and concerned, emphasizing the instability of systems (cybersecurity, quality) and the threats faced by healthcare professionals. The argumentation primarily uses logical reasoning, relying on facts and figures (e.g., a 180 million euro deficit, a 10% reduction in contracts). Structured and demanding questions are posed to the Ministry of Social Affairs, maintaining a formal and analytical tone.

The rhetorical style is direct, confrontational, and accusatory, posing pointed questions to the presenter regarding the inaction of both the coalition and the Social Democrats. The text utilizes both logical arguments (cost comparisons, expert references) and emotional appeals, emphasizing the severity of the social consequences, such as unemployment and rising heating costs. The overall tone is urgent and critical.

The tone is serious, analytical, and pressing, highlighting the critical importance of the situation and potential negative consequences. It employs logical appeals, contrasting stable oil shale energy with unstable wind and solar power. The speaker relies on facts and expert quotations to underscore their arguments concerning energy security and economic viability.