By Plenary Sessions: Aleksei Jevgrafov

The rhetorical style is confrontational, direct, and accusatory, aimed particularly at the minister, whose knowledge and accountability are being called into question. This includes the use of pointed rhetorical questions ("Are you ready to risk the health of the Estonian people?") and emotional appeals concerning the waiting lists for the seriously ill. There is also procedural criticism, such as correcting the minister on the proper name of the Health Insurance Fund.

The rhetorical style is formal and inquiry-based, addressing the minister respectfully. The tone is concerned, emphasizing, through logical arguments, the urgency of the required service and the excessive length of the waiting lists. Specific examples (Narva) are used to illustrate the problem.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and challenging, addressing both the presiding officer and the minister. Logical argumentation is employed, relying on the minister's own words to highlight the deficiencies of the draft bill. The speech is brief, focusing on the demand for specific figures.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-focused, addressing the ministers directly. The tone is concerned and critical, expressing confusion and doubt regarding the rationality of the government's decisions, especially concerning the children's consultation fee. Both data-driven arguments (Kantar Emor) and principled appeals regarding the value of education are utilized.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and analytical, presenting the minister with a specific political question. Logical argumentation is employed, focusing on the details of the regulation and a practical problem (poor internet service); emotional appeals are absent.