The speaker's view is actually twofold: (1) the primary goal of technological growth is to increase people's efficiency; (2) the increase in efficiency adds to the leisure time. These views, though might be true in the past, are all wrong in the modern society.
Admittedly, the origin of technological progress comes from people's indolence. People keep inventing tools to save them from tedious labors. For instance, the computer was first designed as a substitute for people to calculate the curve of a missile, which freed people from strenuous and boring calculations. And the invention of bicycles released people from wasting a lot of time in walking. On this account, we may say that technological advancement is for people's efficiency.
However, this only held true in the past. There are far more vital concerns that technology can and should address today. For example, the advance in biotechnology not only improve the effectiveness of treatment but also helps to prevent the birth defects; while the progress in Internet technology not only promotes the academic exchange but also provides an easier means, such as the Massive Online Open Courses, to access the educational resources. In this sense, advancing technology can bring outcomes more meaningful than increasing the leisure time. It should be, the goals such as health, academia, and education, rather than leisure, that serve as the proper purpose for developing technology today.
Besides, the increase in efficiency does not necessarily lead to more leisure time, but probably a more productive life, because humanity can never satisfy its desire. Equipped with more advanced tools, one can earn more or do more in the same amount of hours, which would arouse the envy and fear of one's competitors, who have to manage to invent more advanced tools for their survival. The competition never ends, nor does the advancement of technology. Much the same as the evolution theory, in this competition, those who stop enhancing themselves end up with failure. Thus they are left with no choices but to work as hard as before. Therefore, people can never obtain more free time by working more efficiently.
In sum, the speaker's argument does not stand up, for it wrongly places leisure ahead of goals such as improving medical treatment as the proper final objectives of technological growth, and it ignores the fact that increase in efficiency does not add to the leisure time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 302, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...which would arouse the envy and fear of ones competitors, who have to manage to inve...
^^^^
Line 7, column 574, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...hancing themselves end up with failure. Thus they are left with no choices but to wo...
^^^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...orking more efficiently. In sum, the speakers argument does not stand up, for it wron...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, first, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2055.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 397.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17632241814 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7793113475 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569269521411 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.4973536987 60.3974514979 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.157894737 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8947368421 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15789473684 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.315814349462 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0905629128713 0.0831039109588 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0585258168859 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16559491226 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0248558131092 0.0667264976115 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.