By Plenary Sessions: Urve Tiidus

The style is formal and polite, addressing both the Director and the Minister respectfully. A logical and information-seeking approach is employed, contrasting standard strict testing with the risks associated with the hospital exemption. The speaker requests a brief and clear explanation.

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and analytical, utilizing standard addresses (esteemed chairman, minister/presenter). The speaker presents straightforward and specific policy questions, using historical context or a summary of the draft bill's content as an introduction. The questions are aimed at identifying the opposing side's priorities, for example, by asking them to select one key recommendation from seven points.

The speech is formal and respectful, addressing the minister directly ("Esteemed Chairman! Esteemed Minister!"). The style is analytical and question-driven, focusing on logical arguments and offering practical solutions (e.g., awareness campaigns). Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on acquiring facts and statistics.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, respectfully addressing the chairman and the minister. Direct, analytical questions are posed, focusing on the logical principles and practical application of the regulations. Emotional appeals are avoided; the emphasis is placed on rational explanation and details.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, employing salutations such as "Esteemed Chairman" and "Esteemed Rapporteur." The speaker uses logical argumentation and extreme hypothetical examples (e.g., a meteorite strike) to emphasize the bill's shortcomings in providing practical solutions.

The address is formal and respectful, directed at both the Director and the Minister. The style is question-focused and analytical, seeking specific data (an overview of solutions) and procedural clarity (notification). Emotional appeals are not used.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and analytical, addressing both the chair and the presenter respectfully. The speaker employs a logical approach, posing the question as a conclusion drawn from previous discussions, in order to achieve regulatory clarity.