Quine's criterion demands that to be is to be the value of a bound variable: admitting non-existents as property-exemplifiers smuggles ontological commitment through the back door.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Bound variable(as used in formal logic): In logic and mathematics, a variable whose value is restricted or limited by a surrounding rule or statement—think of it like a placeholder in a formula that's been pinned down by the context around it.
Quine(as a proper name referring to the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): Willard Van Orman Quine was a 20th-century American philosopher who wrote about how we know things and how language works. In this statement, we're discussing one of his specific ideas about observation.
non-existents(what Russell's analysis deals with): Things that don't actually exist, like the Easter Bunny or the king of France (if there is no king of France).
ontological commitment(Used to derive that literal truth of 'a is F' entails existence of a): The criterion by which acceptance of a sentence as literally true commits one to the existence of the objects referred to by singular terms in that sentence, provided the sentence cannot be paraphrased away.

Based on where you are in your exploration