By Plenary Sessions: Andrei Korobeinik

The style is critical, challenging, and analytical, focusing on logical arguments and factual results. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to highlight the opponent's responsibility and inconsistencies, such as why other countries' economies are not declining under the influence of the same factors. The tone is formal and direct, avoiding emotional appeals and focusing strictly on economic indicators.

The style is sharp, critical, and incisive, combining economic arguments (the example of Lithuania, the impact of Euribor) with emotional appeals regarding social justice and poverty reduction. It employs strong opposition rhetoric, accusing the government of causing the economic recession and breaking promises. It also utilizes irony and personal attacks directed at opponents (e.g., regarding Jürgen Ligi's capacity for empathy).

The rhetorical style is analytical, detail-oriented, and consistent, emphasizing the need to obtain more precise data regarding the financial impact of the policy. The speaker poses a follow-up question by referencing the previous answer, which demonstrates a logical and systematic approach. The tone is formal and focuses on the consistency between facts and forecasts.

The style starts off questioning and ironic, becoming sharply critical and confrontational when the speaker addresses the issue on behalf of the faction. He/She frequently employs rhetorical questions to highlight contradictions and the untrustworthiness of the ministers (for example, when a minister changes their statements). The speaker balances logical arguments (alternative tax solutions) with emotional appeals (sowing poverty, Estonia leading the world in economic decline).

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, often employing sarcasm and direct rebuttals against opponents' arguments (e.g., the accusations leveled against Jürgen Ligi). The speaker relies on facts (the budget deficit, the length of the recession) while simultaneously highlighting social injustice (benefits for the wealthy at the expense of the poorer population). The tone is urgent, calling for the political will necessary to change the situation.

The rhetorical style is direct and argumentative, relying on facts and statistics to refute the opposing party's claim. The tone is challenging, yet polite (using the address "Dear Liisa!"), emphasizing the logical conclusion that a non-existent cause cannot serve as an explanation.