By Plenary Sessions: Siim Pohlak

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and sustained, particularly in its criticism of the minister's response, stressing that the core issue of the question has been sidestepped. It employs both emotional appeal (concerns regarding the local area) and logical argumentation, incorporating technical data concerning the disruptions.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and insistent, employing strong emotional appeals and name-calling (e.g., "fascist logic," "slave-owner mentality"). The speaker utilizes stark contrast (a small group lives well versus the majority suffers) and repeatedly poses rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the government's claims. He publicly protests against the labeling of government critics as Putin's lackeys.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, employing sharp expressions and metaphors (e.g., "The Reform Party's revenge," "arrogantly peeling seven layers of skin," "flushing down the toilet"). The speaker balances emotional appeals with economic data and statistics to underscore the detrimental nature of the government's decisions. The tone is overwhelmingly negative and cautionary, emphasizing the danger posed by waves of price hikes.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, directly charging the opposing side with lying, misleading people, and deliberate obfuscation. The speaker employs both logical argumentation when analyzing the legal text and strong emotional appeals to the conscience of the coalition members of parliament. Simplified phrases are used, such as "plain common sense" and "voting it down without batting an eye," emphasizing the clarity of the issue.