By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The style of speech is critical and interrogative, expressing indignation and bewilderment regarding the government's inaction and the incompetence of officials. Rhetorical questions are employed ("How is such a thing even possible?") to emphasize the abnormality and logical contradiction of the situation. The tone is formal yet sharp, focusing on logical and procedural arguments.

The rhetorical style is sharp and critical, employing emotional terms such as "tax chaos" and "tax circus" to describe the government's actions. However, the style remains respectful towards the presenter, who is praised for a "very human speech" and thorough arguments. The speaker employs a logical appeal, emphasizing the absence of analyses and the example set by European countries.

The tone is predominantly combative, critical, and urgent, employing strong emotional appeals (e.g., children collecting donations while the Health Insurance Fund throws parties). It utilizes extensive data and statistics to support logical arguments, but the style is also personally aggressive, accusing the government of lying to the public and engaging in cynical behavior. It uses strong expressions, such as "reckless squandering" and "total fiasco."

The style is critical and pressing, emphasizing the perilous nature of the situation and the necessity of ensuring child safety. It utilizes logical and policy-based arguments, referencing the substance of the draft legislation and the practices of foreign nations. It concludes with a strong rhetorical question that pits business freedom against the protection of children's health.

The style is formal and interrogative, focusing on logical arguments and facts, such as ministry analyses and previous budgetary issues. The speaker poses pointed questions to challenge the minister's explanations regarding the economic situation and budget transparency. The tone is analytical and demanding, drawing on references to past events and recommendations.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing sharp metaphors such as "tax circus" and "cluster blunder." Appeals are directed both at legal logic (constitutionality, multiple taxation) and at emotions (the hardships faced by families and people with disabilities, driving broken cars). Finally, a promise is made to continue the fight both in court and through elections.