This remark, a critical commentary on Griffiths 2019 (Beyond MaxElide, Linguistic Inquiry 50(3)), considers the status of various binding operations — centrally, Predicate Abstraction and ∃-closure; less centrally, intensionalization — in Alternative Semantics (AS). I argue that it is technically problematic to appeal to the inherent incompatibility of Predicate Abstraction and AS, while assuming the compatibility of ∃-closure and AS. I show that the formal pressures which characterize the interaction of Predicate Abstraction and alternatives apply equally to ∃-closure and alternatives. That is, it is impossible to define a true ∃-closure operation within what might be termed 'standard' AS. A well-behaved AS reflex of ∃-closure can only be defined in a compositional setting where a well-behaved AS reflex of Predicate Abstraction is definable too.