Ariana Grande back with Ricky Alvarez following Ethan Slater split: report 58%

By Jessica Schladebeck64%

7/15/2026, 1:41:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Recency Bias, and Anecdotal, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 27.5% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 690 faulty-reasoning hits from 309 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.4% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,364 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.20% of the article peer group.

Ariana Grande and her ex-boyfriend, Ricky Alvarez, are giving their romance another shot. 
A source close to the couple confirmed to People that their relationship is back on, adding that the popstar and her former backup dancer are “taking things very slowly.” 
“Ariana has always considered Ricky a friend,” they said. 
“She’s not held ill will against him [since their split]. 
Ricky is dependable, trustworthy and very supportive. 
Ariana feels she can be herself around Ricky.” 
The source added: “They’re not jumping into anything serious right away, but Ari is happy to have him back in her life.” 
News of their reignited romance comes after weeks of speculation, sparked in part by Grande’s recent renditions of her hit “thank u, next” during her ongoing Eternal Sunshine Tour. 
The song notoriously namedrops Alvarez as well as some of Grande’s other famous exes, including Pete Davidson, Big Sean and the late Mac Miller. 
In the original version, Grande croons: “Wrote some songs about Ricky/ Now I listen and laugh.” 
But, during her Monday concert, she instead sang: “Wrote some songs about Ricky / We always find our way back.” 
It's not the first time the Grammy winner has tweaked her lyrics for her former flame. 
During a concert on June 27, she went with: “Wrote some songs about Ricky/ He's still got my back.” 
Grande and Alvarez started dating in 2015, and they split the following year in July 2016. 
They connected during her Honeymoon Tour, when Alvarez served as her backup dancer. 
Following their breakup, the “Dangerous Woman” singer went on to date Miller and Davidson before tying the knot with Dalton Gomez in May 2021. 
They finalized their divorce in March 2024, and Grande quickly began dating her “Wicked” co-star, Ethan Slater. 
Their split was confirmed last month. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.6%Jessica Schladebeck: 6.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Jessica Schladebeck: 5.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.5%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Jessica Schladebeck: 7.2%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Jessica Schladebeck: 3.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Jessica Schladebeck: 10.5%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Jessica Schladebeck: 4.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 22.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias22.0%This article: 6.5%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Jessica Schladebeck: 5.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.8%Jessica Schladebeck: 4.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization17.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.8%Jessica Schladebeck: 9.3%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion7.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.9%Jessica Schladebeck: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.9%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.9%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof1.9%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.4%Jessica Schladebeck: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal21.4%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.5%Jessica Schladebeck: 5.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote27.5%This article: 2.9%Jessica Schladebeck: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 24.9%Jessica Schladebeck: 7.6%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice24.9%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Schladebeck: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

309 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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