Antecedent-contained ellipsis (ACE) has been taken as evidence for covert LF movement. Unlike typical ellipses which depend entirely on an anteceding constituent for content-recovery, however, ACE occurs in a relative clause with a UG-dictated wh-operator which necessarily entails a trace/copy inside the elided VP. This extra trait is shown to be sufficient for a simple account of ACE sans the quantifier-raising (QR) of the object. In fact, since QR is no longer needed, a long ignored problem disappears automatically: ACE happens even when the DP containing the elliptic gap is not a quantificational phrase and thus should not undergo QR. The data taken to bear on ACE in the literature are divided into simple ACE, interactive ACE, and irrelevant ACE. Each type is shown to actually challenge the QR-account of ACE in its own ways while complying with the non-movement model. The Chinese data of wh-in-situ is also re-examined with additional facts, which leads to the conclusion that except weishenme ‘why,’ all in-situ wh expressions in Chinese are best analyzed via a revised – and what is argued to be more coherent – syntactic implementation of choice functions.