By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, accusatory, and emotionally charged. It employs strong language such as "it is shameful to take money away from pensioners" and claims that "the government is literally throwing money out of a helicopter." The text also utilizes ideological contrast, challenging the government's supposed dedication to the free market while simultaneously supporting green energy. Although the tone is formal (using direct addresses to the minister and the chairman), the substance is urgent and damning.

The rhetorical style is sharp, direct, and confrontational, often employing rhetorical questions to challenge the minister's credibility ("Do you seriously believe...?"). Strong judgments are utilized, for instance, labeling the minister's assertions "nonsense." The appeal is made to both logic (the cost of energy) and emotion, by contrasting the minister's salary with the situation of pensioners.

The rhetorical style is critical and accusatory, particularly concerning the government's alleged unfair redistribution. Formal address is used toward the presiding officer and the minister, but emotionally charged questions are posed. The appeals are based on both moral justice and economic consequences.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, particularly when directed at the government, often employing direct questions. A strong emotional appeal is utilized, contrasting "the poor" and "the rich" (specifically banks) to highlight social injustice.

The rhetorical style is formal and substantive, utilizing the Q&A session format to pose direct questions to the prime minister. The tone is anxious and urgent, emphasizing logical arguments grounded in economic consequences and referencing the criticism of foreign experts.

The speaking style is formal and courteous, utilizing the salutations "Esteemed Chair of the Session" and "Esteemed Rapporteur." The address itself is brief and direct, combining an expression of support with a question regarding the likely reasons for the rejection of the draft bill, seeking political analysis rather than an emotional appeal.