By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

An artificially inquisitive and analytical tone, employing questions ("why, even so...?") and hypothetical scenarios, thereby merging facts and speculation. It is formal, internationally appropriate, and highly focused, attempting specifically to rationalize the opposing viewpoint.

Characterized by a strong critical tone and direct rhetoric; it frequently employs rhetorical questions ("What exactly are you collecting these taxes for...?") and repeats the phrase "triple taxation" to highlight the contradiction inherent in the government's proposal. It combines emotional and logical arguments, but primarily leans toward fact-based wording and examples. The emphasis is placed on a provocative, yet structured manner that remains formally appropriate for a briefing.

The tone is analytical and somewhat critical, yet it maintains a calm and measured approach when presenting viewpoints. It utilizes references to facts and the National Audit Office report, alongside personal examples of reform experience and illustrations of the importance of language and democracy. The text successfully combines emotionally impactful moments with strong, well-developed argumentation.

A critical and accusatory tone; employs direct questions and hypothetical scenarios. It begins formally and then transitions into argumentation, often labeling the corresponding plans as potential cuts, and includes irony (“is this really your strategy?”). Balance: both an emotional and a logical approach, utilizing both examples and headline-style claims.

Strongly critical, combining urgency with facts; it uses questions and primes the audience to focus on concerns (tourism, employment, regional impact). The text's structure is clear and analytical, yet engaging and somewhat vividly rhetorical, for instance, by referencing the Latvian example.