By Months: Riina Sikkut

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and consistent, employing the form of address typical of parliament ("Esteemed Minister"). The appeals are primarily logical, highlighting connections (e.g., between hunger and poor concentration) and referencing previous discussions. In the third speech, the tone is informative and authoritative as he shares knowledge about budgetary procedures.

The style is analytical, formal, and often insistent, particularly when addressing issues of budget and productivity. It utilizes strong evaluations, such as "masterclass in demagoguery" and "irresponsible budget." To clarify complex topics, it employs striking analogies (hospital beds versus Excel optimization, gold mining versus a nuclear power plant), and consistently demands numerical and quantitative answers from ministers rather than subjective assessments.

The speaking style is analytical, detailed, and often sharp, particularly when criticizing the government's actions and priorities. The speaker repeatedly employs rhetorical questions directed at ministers (e.g., "Whose business interests are you defending?"). The tone is frequently urgent, stressing that social issues ("concerns about making ends meet") cannot afford to wait. It appeals to justice and core values (humanitarian law, inequality, patient autonomy).

The speaker employs an analytical and detailed style, which is often sharp and demanding, particularly when addressing ministers (for instance, demanding political accountability and resignation). They balance logical arguments (evidence-based policy, IMF data) with passionate support for social values (feminism, justice). While the speech is formal, it also contains direct rebuttals to the cynical or prejudiced views of opponents.

The speaker's style is predominantly formal, analytical, and fact-based, relying on explanations of the legal framework and directives. The tone is often serious and urgent, especially when addressing topics concerning youth health and social inequality. The speaker is prepared to be sharp, calling objections regarding wind energy "pseudoscientific nonsense" and criticizing unethical behavior.

The rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and critical, emphasizing logical argumentation and procedural correctness. The speaker employs rhetorical questions ("does the end justify the means") and expresses strong disapproval regarding the changes made during the procedure, accusing the opposing side of negligence.