By Plenary Sessions: Tarmo Tamm

Insufficient data

The rhetorical style is formal, measured, and persuasive, employing an optimistic tone to emphasize the soundness of the draft law. The appeals focus primarily on logical arguments, highlighting economic benefits and regulatory clarity. The speaker addresses colleagues with a call for them to support the bill.

The style is polite and formal, starting with thanks and recognition directed at the presenter ("very educational") and respectfully addressing the manager. The speaker poses their question directly and logically, referring to it as a "simple question" that seeks factual and regulatory clarification.

The style is predominantly formal, procedural, and explanatory, focusing on facts and legal justification. When answering questions, the tone is calm and defensively reasoned, emphasizing that the shipping companies were aware of the taxation and that this is not a retroactive obligation. At the end of the speech, the tone becomes corrective, refuting the opposing party's claims regarding letters received by the Commission.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, objective, and informative, focusing on communicating the substance of the committee meeting and its procedural decisions. The discourse is logical and fact-based (questions, answers, projections), avoiding emotional or polemical appeals. The tone is neutral, and the objective is to ensure the full assembly is apprised of the committee's work.

The speaker’s style is serious, concerned, and at times urgent, especially when describing the suffering of rural residents and the emergence of wolf-related fear. He balances logical arguments (the outdated nature of the legal text) with powerful emotional appeals (the destruction of one's life's work, moral damage, and the loss of state trust). The speech is formal and analytical, containing direct calls for support and political guidance.

The rhetorical style is formal and explanatory, centered on logical confirmation and verifying mutual understanding through the use of questions. The tone is neutral and procedural, intended to ensure the accurate comprehension of the agreed-upon conditions.

The style of discourse is formal, informative, and procedural, typical of a committee report presented to the plenary session. Logical and data-driven arguments are employed, emphasizing the equity of the proposed solution ("in every respect fair and just") while strictly avoiding emotional appeals. The complexity level is moderate, focusing on the specific articles of the law and the substance of the proposed amendments.

The rhetorical style is analytical and question-oriented, starting with a point of consensus before presenting a data-driven concern. Logical appeals and statistical comparisons (e.g., "the country with the smallest CO2 footprint in Europe") are used to emphasize the imbalance of the situation. The tone is cautious, presenting the problem in the form of a question ("Do you not see such a small threat?").

The address is formal, neutral, and informative, fulfilling the role of the commission's rapporteur. The style is logical and focuses on conveying facts and procedural details, such as the discussion regarding the time required for developing the IT solution. Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on highlighting consensus and reasonableness.

The style is optimistic, encouraging, and highly supportive, utilizing positive phrases such as "excellent initiative" and "great draft bill." Both logical arguments (modernization, supporting entrepreneurship) and emotional appeal are employed, linking faster service to a happier and more loyal citizen.

The address is formal and polite, utilizing the forms of address "Lugupeetud juhataja" (Esteemed Chairman) and "Hea ettekandja" (Dear Presenter). The rhetorical style is direct and centered on questions, seeking logical and concrete information regarding the plan's implementation, balancing courtesy with pragmatic assertiveness.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, focusing on logical arguments, clarifying consequences, and highlighting the dangers inherent in setting a precedent. Rhetorical questions are employed (e.g., "Are we ready for this?") alongside strong evaluations, labeling the opposing side as incompetent and the proposal itself as populist. The tone remains formal and centers on the long-term impact of the policy.

The style of discourse is formal, neutral, and purely informative. The presentation is logical and chronological, focusing on facts and procedural dates, while avoiding emotional appeals. The tone is businesslike and purposeful.

The style is formal, analytical, and action-oriented, focusing on logical arguments and the necessity of concrete solutions. The tone is urgent and pragmatic, stressing that a plan and action are required to make things happen. Instead of emotional appeals, the focus is placed on systemic changes, such as modifying regulations and selecting sectors for priority development.

The presentation is formal and objective, focusing on facts and procedural outcomes. The tone is positive and complimentary regarding the presentation given by the minister and officials, utilizing logical and concise language to highlight the thoroughness of the report.