By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The rhetorical style is persuasive, empathetic, and at times defensive, stressing the Riigikogu's moral obligation to assist individuals who have been wronged. Both logical arguments (a small administrative burden) and emotional appeals (peace of mind, injustice) are employed, and an example illustrating the importance of a comma in a sentence is brought up. The speaker actively attempts to change the positions that colleagues had previously established in their factions or committees.

The rhetorical style is interrogative and critical, expressing bewilderment over the ambiguity of the legal text ("Have these constituted AI?"). The tone is formal, addressing the Minister and the Presiding Officer, but the appeals are logical, focusing on the comprehensibility of the law's content and the lack of a long-term strategy.

The rhetorical style is concerned and urgent, emphasizing the suffering of the island residents and entrepreneurs, and pointing to empty hotels and tourist farms. Both logical arguments (the ferry as an extension of the road, not a convenience service) and emotional comparisons (it is cheaper to go to Greece than to Saaremaa) are utilized.

The rhetorical style employed is critical and provocative, using direct questions to expose the contradictions in government policy. Personal anecdotes (the father's story, the Saaremaa resident) and shared history with the minister (attending the same school) are utilized to personalize the arguments and lend them emotional weight.

The rhetorical style is critical and urgent, emphasizing the serious questioning of Estonia's sustainability. Both logical arguments are used (lack of children equals lack of taxpayers) and strong emotional appeals (the removal of health insurance from a full-time working mother). The tone is formal, yet direct and accusatory.

The rhetorical style is formal and critical, employing logical arguments and historical examples to challenge the government's actions. Sharp phrases such as "artificial consolidation" are used, and the lack of political accountability is emphasized, referencing the Nordica case. Several direct questions are posed that cast doubt on the prime minister's claims regarding cost savings.