By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and emotional, often employing negative evaluations such as "cynical cost-cutting measure" and "humiliating announcement." The speaker balances ethical and emotional appeals (dignity, sense of security) with detailed legislative amendments and statistical data to emphasize the detrimental nature of the government's actions. Ironic remarks are also present (e.g., "we could support our elderly instead of focusing on gender self-determination").

The style is formal, yet it shifts to become passionate and critical when discussing the actions of the opposition. The speaker employs both logical arguments (such as productivity growth and examples drawn from international happiness indices) and value-based appeals (focusing on family, dignity, and the Christian cultural sphere). He/She utilizes vivid metaphors like "the steamroller" and accuses the coalition of taking a superficial approach to addressing problems. Furthermore, he/she is meticulous regarding the Riigikogu's Rules of Procedure, frequently raising procedural points.

The rhetorical style, when questioning, is combative and demanding, emphasizing the need to answer according to one's conscience, rather than in a technical role. When analyzing the draft bill on pharmaceutical reserves, the style is detailed, logical, and cautionary, utilizing legal and economic terminology to criticize the state's actions (e.g., "state theft," "distortion of competition").

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharp and confrontational, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions ("Are you a hostage of the Socs?"). The speaker emphasizes responsibility and values, accusing the government of being held in political captivity. The tone is critical, but the Prime Minister's initiative in raising the topic is simultaneously acknowledged.

The rhetorical style is critical and sharp, employing powerful metaphors such as "magicians and illusionists" and referencing the proverb that "continuous dripping water wears away a stone." The tone is formal but includes both logical argumentation (the impact of taxes) and emotional appeal (the protection of vulnerable people). The speaker quotes the ministers' previous statements to highlight the contradiction between their actions and their stated principles.