By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The rhetorical style is critical, accusatory, and direct, emphasizing the injustice and negative consequences of the government's proposals ("bad law," "unjust"). It employs both logical arguments (specific financial examples, citing experts) and emotional appeals, focusing on the protection of vulnerable groups (pensioners, the poor, students). The speech maintains a formal tone, addressing the respected presiding officer and the rapporteur, yet it includes pointed questions regarding the competence of the opposing party.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet confrontational in substance, posing direct and sharp questions to the ministers and the prime minister ("Why don't you understand this?"). The appeals are primarily logical and economic, focusing on the tax burden, competitiveness, and the state's debt obligations. The speaker also employs direct correction (specifically, correcting the prime minister's assertion regarding the price of fossil fuels).

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, emphasizing the injustice and harmfulness of the car tax, labeling it "a very bad idea." Both logical arguments (such as hindering economic growth) and emotional appeals (like robbing the poor) are used to underscore the unfairness of the government's policy.

The rhetorical style is suspicious and personally charged, even though it is presented as a procedural question. The speaker uses direct questions to convey the feeling that they are being ignored, both in parliamentary proceedings and in the media, by referencing standards that they allegedly fail to meet.

The style is sharp, critical, and anxious, using strong expressions such as "ära tappa" (don't kill). A strong rhetorical question is posed regarding the failure to protect national interests. The tone is formal (an address to the Prime Minister), but the content is combative and appeals to national sentiment.