By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The style is formal and interrogative, repeatedly addressing the presenter politely but persistently with critical questions. The speaker relies on logical and procedural arguments, demanding the submission of economic analysis and figures. Emotional appeals are employed when mentioning the suffering of people due to cyberattacks, but the overall tone is analytical.

The rhetorical style is sharp and emotional when criticizing opponents, calling the minister's statement "appalling" and accusing it of having offended a large part of society. At the same time, the tone towards the presenter is polite and appreciative, posing questions directly and focusing on policy.

The tone is predominantly combative, critical, and accusatory, aimed especially at the government and former coalition partners (the Social Democrats). It employs strong emotional appeals (lying, shame, treating the public like fools) and presents detailed lists (ministerial failures, tax hikes). The style is rather colloquial and direct, intended to highlight the confusion stemming from the government's incompetence.

The tone is predominantly urgent, anxious, and critical, stressing that human lives are at stake and the situation is anarchic. It employs both emotional appeals (the threat to human lives, wage poverty) and logical arguments (the shifting of responsibility between agencies, legal loopholes). The style is formal, yet it also includes anecdotal examples of the daily traffic chaos in Mustamäe.

The style is formal, yet critical and demanding, centered on the minister's accountability and obtaining explanations. The speaker employs logical argumentation, citing the minister's own statements concerning the poor economic situation and the lack of budget transparency. Additionally, the rhetoric contains ideological confrontation, specifically labeling the redistribution of income as socialism.

The style is predominantly confrontational, emotional, and critical, especially towards the Minister of Finance, who is accused of disrespect, scolding, and failing to provide answers. Repeated and memorable narratives are employed (the shifting goal of the car tax, the "chicken-moose" tax), and there is a direct appeal to the public. The speaker emphasizes that the government's actions are "embarrassing and sad" and generate public distrust.