By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The rhetorical style is urgent and confrontational, particularly when criticizing government inaction ("We no longer have time"). The speaker employs both logical arguments (citing experts and statistics) and emotional appeals (referencing the act of giving a voice to a war criminal). They also use references to public figures and media events to support their positions.

The rhetorical style is emotional and compelling, utilizing personal stories (the loss of a father and husband to cancer) and references to the founders of the cancer treatment fund to underscore the critical necessity of treatment accessibility. The tone is fiercely critical of the government, accusing them of creating uncertainty and lacking a comprehensive vision. Both political criticism and a humanitarian appeal are employed.

The tone is critical, concerned, and urgent, especially regarding the government's inaction and unfair treatment of large families. The speaker employs both emotional appeals (references to letters of concern and indignation from mothers) and logical arguments, relying on the constitution and statistical facts. The style is formal, but it includes sharp procedural criticism concerning the unfair treatment of interest groups.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing strong expressions such as "anti-family ministers" and "tormenting/dragging things out." The speaker launches direct personal attacks against the Prime Minister and the ministers, accusing them of generating uncertainty, breaking promises, and showing a lack of empathy. Although the tone is overwhelmingly combative and critical, a brief moment of hope is expressed when the Prime Minister quotes the constitution.

The tone of the speech is predominantly concerned and critical, highlighting the stagnation of the Estonian economy and the hardships faced by residents in rural areas. He uses both logical arguments (market economy, competitiveness) and figurative comparisons (the energy puzzle, corner pieces), starting with praise for the minister but quickly shifting to sharp criticism of the government. The style is formal and thorough, necessitating additional time for an exhaustive treatment of the subject.