By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The style is highly formal and polite, utilizing standard forms of address ("esteemed chair of the session," "Dear presenter"). This is a direct, information-gathering question, characterized by a neutral and businesslike tone.

The rhetorical style is highly polite and respectful, including expressions of gratitude directed at both the chair and the presenter. A structured, two-part question is posed, which highlights a logical and policy-centered approach.

The tone is demanding and urgent, particularly regarding finding solutions to border issues, expressing hope for a swift resolution "tomorrow." The strongly critical and emotionally charged term "neonationalization" is employed to highlight the state's unjust treatment of landowners. The speaker raises questions about specific details and deadlines, blending criticism with fact-based inquiry.

The rhetorical style is interrogative, critical, and persistent, aimed directly at challenging the minister's attitudes. Repeated rhetorical questions are employed to underscore the importance of the service provider's transparency and linguistic proficiency. The tone is formal, focusing on logical arguments derived from the definition of public service.

The style is formal, analytical, and critical, posing pointed and detailed questions to the Minister. The argument is strictly logical and procedural, casting doubt on the government's technical budgetary decisions and their long-term viability. The speaker employs a rhetorical device by referencing the government's own prior criticism concerning the failures of preceding administrations.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, focusing on logical arguments and the comparison of data. The speaker presents their questions in a structured manner, often in two parts, and demands explanations from the government regarding factual contradictions and inconsistencies found within the budget documents.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, employing a critical tone to highlight procedural inefficiency. The appeal is logical, contrasting the waiter's alleged rapid movement with the actual slow pace, which contradicts the early warning.