By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The style of address is formal and polite, respectfully addressing both the chair of the session and the presenter. The tone is direct and businesslike; the question is described as a "simple question," which suggests a desire to receive a quick and clear answer.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and sharply interrogative, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to highlight the draft's unreasonableness and lack of clarity ("Why are we doing this?", "Why was it necessary to use the back door?"). The appeal is directed toward logic and procedural correctness, focusing on the system's complexity and duplication rather than emotional arguments.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative. The speaker typically presents their viewpoints as questions, requesting the presenter to assess the situation, provide a forecast, or prioritize the problems. The tone is logical, focusing on fact-based evaluation and the search for solutions.

The style is formal and analytical, employing logical arguments that emphasize the undesirable consequences of the policy (e.g., the tax compels families to purchase two older cars instead of one new one). The tone regarding large families is critical and concerned, utilizing strong language such as "we are repressing them," while on energy issues, the tone is rather information-seeking and demands clarification.

The rhetorical style is inquisitive and skeptical, utilizing hypothetical scenarios and rhetorical questions to challenge the underlying assumptions of the draft. Although the address is formal (directed at the Chairman and the rapporteur), it also includes some colloquial and emotional expressions (e.g., "will start gobbling up even more," "it still seems odd to most people").