In the present commentary, I argue that Foster has attacked an uncharitable reconstruction of Etchemendy's argument against Tarski's account of the logical properties. I provide an alternative, more charitable reconstruction of that argument that withstands Foster's objections. When I first read Chris Foster's paper, 1 I found myself agreeing with much of what he said, even agreeing that Etchemendy and I are both guilty of the same mistake. But I don't think we're guilty of the mistake that Foster thinks we are. And I want to explain why.