By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The style is analytical, critical, and questioning, focusing on logical counterarguments and highlighting contradictions within government policy. The tone is skeptical, particularly concerning the bill's financial forecasts, which are referred to as "merely a hypothesis" and "completely questionable."

The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and logic-based, focusing on specific monetary amounts and procedural failures. Repeated rhetorical questions are used to cast doubt on the validity of the government's financial policy. The speaker is persistent, repeating the question after the Prime Minister avoided answering and accusing him of deflecting the issue.

The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and at times accusatory, calling into question the minister's assertions regarding the urgency of the draft bill and the ministry's competence. Rhetorical questions are employed ("What is so complicated about this?") alongside allusions to political bias, which suggests preferential treatment for supporters of the ruling parties. The overall tone is formal, yet direct and concerned.

The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and at times confrontational, challenging the logic and correlation behind the government's actions. It employs both logical argumentation (fiscal data) and a strong emotional appeal, citing, for instance, a personal story about the death of a loved one due to long waiting lists. The speech is formal, addressing the presiding officer and the minister.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply critical and interrogative, typically employed during the Riigikogu information session. Contrast is utilized (a cheerful prime minister versus a somber finance minister) to undermine the government's credibility. The appeals are logical, relying on specific data and journalistic references concerning the government's failure to keep its promises.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, posing accusatory questions to the Minister of Finance. It employs both political facts (the size of the deficit) and subjective observations regarding the minister's state ("looking tired, looking sad"). The speech concludes with a direct challenge to the minister’s political autonomy ("Who is forcing you to do this?").

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, questioning the minister's claims and accusing the government of using cosmetic measures aimed at improving its ratings. Both logical arguments (the aging of the vehicle fleet) and emotional contrasts (20 euros vs 100 euros in child benefits) are employed. The tone is demanding, recommending the complete abolition of the tax.