WPLN12%

Keeping an eye on the water, new YMCA technology can help swimmers in distress 2%

By Emily West0%

7/23/2026, 6:22:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 5.6% saturation with 16 hits. Analysis detected 30 faulty-reasoning hits from 286 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 10.3% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,573 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.60% of the article peer group.

The pool inside the Nashville YMCA summer of 2026 
A new drowning detection system in Middle Tennessee pools will help lifeguards aid those in need. 
Installation of the sensors started in April for the YMCA of Middle Tennessee and are coming online at its 12 indoor facilities. 
The program is called Angel Eye, and it’s designed to detect someone drowning or needing help in the water. 
 It’s looking for unusual swimming patterns or a member who becomes incapacitated and goes to the bottom of the pool,” said Holly Sanders, executive director of risk development for the YMCA of Middle Tennessee. 
The system will have sensors either above the pool or in the water. 
If someone is swimming and winds up in distress, Angel Eye sends an alert to a lifeguard’s watch. 
It pinpoints the location in the pool and sounds the alarm. 
As of July, Angel Eye went up in the ceiling of the East Nashville YMCA. 
By the end of the year, all locations will have the same system. 
The YMCA of Middle Tennessee first tested Angel Eye in late 2025 as a pilot program. 
Each system will undergo up to 30 days of testing after installation before being fully incorporated into lifeguarding procedures at each location. 
Sanders emphasized this will not replace lifeguards, but help them when seconds are critical. 
The goal is for the guard to beat the technology to see someone in distress. 
“Without the guard, we have no one to get in the water to rescue the member,” Sanders said. 
“The guards aren’t going anywhere. 
We are just wanting to add that secondary layer of protection.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.3%WPLN: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 5.5%WPLN: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.7%WPLN: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Emily West: 10.2%WPLN: 4.0%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.3%WPLN: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.2%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Emily West: 3.3%WPLN: 2.8%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.1%WPLN: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 9.0%WPLN: 7.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.9%WPLN: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 4.4%WPLN: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.2%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.9%WPLN: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.8%WPLN: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.2%WPLN: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 4.4%WPLN: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 3.8%WPLN: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 3.9%WPLN: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 5.8%WPLN: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.9%WPLN: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.6%WPLN: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.1%WPLN: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.7%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 1.4%WPLN: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.8%WPLN: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 2.2%WPLN: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily West: 0.0%WPLN: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

286 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker29%attributed speech203writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Sanders • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Sanders • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Sanders • 18 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Sanders • 5 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Sanders • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Holly Sanders

0%flagged-word coverage
83 attributed words100% of attributed speech15% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.