By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is critical and insistent, relying heavily on statistical data to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. Logical argumentation is employed to refute the government’s comparisons with other European countries and its claims regarding the impact of the war. The tone is demanding, requiring "real steps" from the government rather than merely cosmetic changes.

The tone is predominantly critical, demanding, and anxious, utilizing emotional terms such as "bullying" (in the context of pensioners) and "paradoxical situation." It appeals to logic by presenting factual contradictions (the availability of funds versus the closure of the unit) and employs repeated emphasis (inflation, the growing population of North Tallinn). It directly asks the government why they aren't pounding their fist on the table, demonstrating a desire for forceful intervention.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and incisive, employing strong expressions such as "a farce," "ridiculous," and "catastrophic." It combines logical argumentation (statistics, inflation) with emotional appeals (children's health, families' trust in the state). It repeatedly employs rhetorical questions and accusations of hypocrisy and a lack of political will, referencing the coalition's "steamroller" tactics.

The tone is critical and demanding, emphasizing the urgency of issues that have not lost their relevance despite the time elapsed since the inquiry was submitted. It uses rational arguments and statistics, but also incorporates emotional appeals (dignity, respectful attitude). One minister is praised for providing a rational response, which creates a contrast with the formal approach taken by other government members.

The style is substantive and politically contentious, focusing on a logical argument (making life simpler) and referencing previous discussions. The speech concludes with a rhetorical question that challenges the validity of the coalition's stance and its adherence to moral values.

The tone is predominantly critical and urgent, particularly concerning the Health Insurance Fund, where warnings of bankruptcy are issued. It employs both logical arguments (European comparisons, economic considerations) and emotional appeals (young people 'hanging out,' strengthening family ties). The style is formal ("Dear Minister/Colleagues"), but also includes sharp criticism aimed at the government's "comfortable tactics."

The rhetorical style is critical and pressing, emphasizing the "complete mess" the government has created surrounding the car tax. It employs both formal address ("Honorable Prime Minister") and sharp political jabs, citing the Prime Minister’s alleged characterization of the tax as a "chicken-moose" (a term implying absurdity). The argumentation relies on both emotional appeals (layoffs, uncertainty) and logical appeals (economic statistics).

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and demanding, focusing on logical arguments and the requirement for accountability. The format of an inquiry is utilized, presenting a sequence of detailed questions that necessitate the disclosure of specific analyses and the basis of authority. The text concludes with a sharp, choice-demanding question concerning strategic priorities.

The speaker's rhetorical style is formal, but the tone is predominantly critical, urgent, and accusatory, especially when assessing the government's actions (e.g., calling the rhetoric surrounding the sugar tax "cynical"). A balanced approach is used, where emotional appeals (children's health, the consequences of closing the Kopli fire station) are supported by specific data and statistical comparisons (internet speeds, salary figures, the Lithuanian/Latvian bank tax).