 This modified version of Rosen’s account appears to correctly classify existence as a local property given the above metaphysical theses. Given these metaphysical theses, however, it ends up classifying too many properties as local. In particular, given the above theses, it appears to falsely classify the non-local property of having a member as a local property. It does this, since, given the above metaphysical theses, necessarily, if \(x\) has a member, then the fact that \(x\) has a member is plausibly be grounded by the fact that \(y\) is a member of \(x\), where \(y\) is some member of \(x\), and where \(x\) is ontologically dependent on \(y\).