By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

The approach used is polite and structured, starting with an expression of gratitude toward the presenter. Questions are posed in a logical sequence, and the constraints of time limits are acknowledged. The style leans toward formal and analytical rather than emotional.

It employs a formal yet accessible style, beginning by thanking veterans to establish an an emotional connection. It balances criticism with constructive suggestions, using rhetorical questions ("where do we draw the line...") to underscore its points. It concludes on a positive note, affirming support for transparency.

The tone of speech is polite and constructive, utilizing formal address ("respected Chairman," "dear Minister"). The rhetoric blends an emotional approach (concern for citizens) with rational argumentation, presenting specific questions and alternatives.

The rhetoric is inquisitive and cautious, employing rhetorical questions ("Doesn't it seem to you...") and referencing the public's anxiety. The style is polite but critical, combining emotional arguments (societal anxiety) with logical concerns (security risks).

The speaker employs an emotional and combative tone, combining personal narratives ("every family, every child, every elderly person") with fact-based arguments. The rhetoric is direct and provocative, utilizing questions to undermine the opponent's stance ("Where do you get that...?", "How can one not understand this?"). The overall tone is critical and accusatory toward the government.

It employs an emotional and personal approach, emphasizing teachers working "with heart" and highlighting practical experience. The rhetoric is questioning and provocative, using direct questions aimed at the minister and stressing contradictions within the system. The style is straightforward and somewhat critical, but remains within the bounds of politeness.

It employs a direct and interrogative approach, combining ironic remarks ("you are a secret supporter") with fact-based questions. The rhetoric is confrontational rather than conciliatory, utilizing specific numbers and examples in support of its arguments. It emphasizes the need for practical results instead of emotional appeals.