"accountable for training" vs "is accountable for training"

Question

"accountable for training" vs "is accountable for training"

Both phrases are correct, but they are used in different contexts. 'Accountable for training' is a concise way to express responsibility for training, while 'is accountable for training' explicitly states that someone is responsible for training. The choice between them depends on the level of formality or emphasis desired.

Last Updated: March 12, 2024

This phrase is used to indicate that someone is responsible for training. It is concise and direct.

Alternatives:

responsible for training
in charge of training
overseeing training
managing training
handling training

This phrase is more formal and emphasizes the responsibility of the person for training.

Alternatives:

has accountability for training
bears responsibility for training
is in charge of training
manages training
oversees training

Answer 1

accountable for training

This phrase is correct and commonly used to indicate responsibility for training.

Answer 2

is accountable for training

This phrase is also correct and explicitly states that someone is responsible for training.

"accountable for training" vs "is accountable for training"

accountable for training

is accountable for training

Related Comparisons