By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and at times frustrated, focusing on repeated requests for the minister to clarify the logic. Strong rhetorical questions are used to cast doubt on the government's motives ("Whose interests are you working for?"). The tone also reflects irritation due to the noise and disruption prevailing in the chamber ("Droning/Buzzing," "What am I guilty of?").

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, employing a strong contrast (firefighters vs. bureaucrats). The speaker appeals to both logic (financial priorities) and emotion (saving lives), framing their position as a pointed rhetorical question that demands an explanation for the illogical conduct.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, especially when questioning the government's motives ("whose interests are you serving?"). Strong contrasts are employed (the poor versus the oligarchs) alongside sarcasm ("that was a beautiful story you just told us about the poor banks"). The appeals are a mixture of statistical data and social pathos.