By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetoric is challenging and demanding, centering on concrete examples and the insistence upon accountability. The speaker employs formal address ("respected chair of the session," "dear minister") but subsequently poses sharp and specific questions. The objective is to clarify complex situations for the public, stressing the necessity of providing "real-life examples."

The tone is predominantly critical, accusatory, and insistent, employing strong emotional appeals and emphasizing that the money was taken from "pensioners, families, and small entrepreneurs." The speaker levels sharp accusations regarding a lack of transparency, corruption, and a "Wild West" situation. Vivid analogies are used (supporting a hotel chain, cutting down a tree just to get a checker piece), and journalistic investigations (the Õhtuleht article) are referenced to substantiate the arguments.

The style is predominantly interrogative, confrontational, and sharply critical, including an ironic element, referring to "a small comical element." The speaker employs both logical appeals (demanding figures and practical examples) and emotional accusations, charging the opposing side with discrimination and displacement activity.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, particularly when addressing the issue of reservists. Strong emotional appeals are employed ("it is embarrassing to listen to this"), alongside direct accusations of lacking willpower and capability ("there is no will, there is no capability"). The speaker concludes with a rhetorical question and an open expression of distrust regarding the presenter's promises.

The rhetorical style is serious, insistent, and strongly critical, particularly regarding the demographic crisis, employing emotional appeals focused on the nation's survival. The speaker demands concrete measures and strategic leadership, contrasting this with the government's "superficial development plans" and "empty promises." The style is formal and centers on institutional responsibility and constitutional obligations.

The style is formal, interrogative, and challenging, employing the salutations "Esteemed Session Chair" and "Dear Presenter." The speaker primarily relies on logical and statistical appeals, presenting official data (the number of deaths per week) and demanding clarification regarding a potential cause-and-effect relationship. The tone is serious and concerned, calling the official narrative into question.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, focusing on the clarification of specific details and conditions. The tone is skeptical and demanding, particularly regarding environmental risks, appealing to logic and the necessity of evidence-based answers. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on political oversight and demanding accountability.

The tone is sharply critical, accusatory, and deeply concerned, particularly towards the government and officials who evade accountability. The text employs both logical arguments (the commission's tasks/mandate) and emotional appeals (the evaporation of taxpayer funds, injustice). The speaker stresses the necessity of a shift in political culture, demanding that decisions be followed by responsibility, and repeatedly references earlier scandals (Tallinn Port, Autorollo) to demonstrate a recurring pattern.