In Lasnik (1995d), I proposed an analysis of Pseudogapping in which the right-hand remnant has raised to [Spec, AgrO] and the VP from which it has escaped subsequently undergoes deletion. Here, I consider some further implications of that analysis, and some problems it raises. One of the problems is the unacceptability of certain English Pseudogapping-like constructions, but where the verb, too, has escaped the VP that will be deleted. I tentatively suggest an account in terms of a version of relativized minimality, after rejecting an analysis that would directly prohibit XP ellipsis when the head X has raised out of XP. This latter possibility is shown to be inconsistent with the behavior of VP-ellipsis in a number of V raising languages. Finally, I explore interactions between Pseudogapping and antecedent contained deletion (ACD), showing how some, but definitely not all, apparent instances of ACD can be analyzed as Pseudogapping. I should point out that the entire analysis in this chapter is stated in terms of the PF crash theory of strong features of Chomsky (1993). In Chapter 6, I reconsider the nature of strong features, showing how some facts that seemed to motivate the PF crash account can be restated in terms of the “online” crash theory of Chomsky (1995a), a theory that Chomsky argues is conceptually superior. Most of the phenomena considered in the present chapter are amenable to a treatment in terms of this revised theory of strong features. There is, however, one exception: The account I offer of the marginality of all Pseudogapping crucially relies on the PF crash theory of strong features. I have not yet been able to find an alternative.