1. "found my life → discovered myself"
Original phrase "found my life" is unidiomatic and unclear in English. While "find" can be used for discovery, the phrase "find my life" doesn't convey the intended meaning of self-discovery and personal growth. The corrected phrase "discovered myself" is the standard English expression for coming to understand oneself better and exploring one's identity.

2. "could find → discovered"
The original "could find" suggests ability rather than actual accomplishment. "Could" implies potential rather than achievement. The simple past "discovered" directly states the action was completed and is more natural in this context of describing actual achievements during the year.

3. "could finish → completed"
The original "could finish" again emphasizes ability rather than accomplishment. "Could" is unnecessary here as we're describing actual achievements. "Completed" is more direct and appropriate for describing accomplished tasks, emphasizing the successful conclusion rather than just the ability to do it.

4. Added "important"
The original sentence lacked specificity about the types of tasks completed. Adding "important" provides context about the significance of these accomplishments and explains why they're worth mentioning in a year-end review.

5. "in my life → [removed]"
The phrase "in my life" is redundant here because we're already discussing personal accomplishments within the context of the year. The removal makes the sentence more concise without losing meaning. The sentence is grammatically complete without this phrase.

6. "could study → was able to"
While both expressions show ability, "was able to" is more natural in this context. "Could" can sometimes suggest a hypothetical ability, while "was able to" more clearly indicates that the opportunity was actually realized.

7. "want → wanted"
The original present tense "want" doesn't match the past time frame being discussed. Since we're talking about events that happened throughout the year, we need the past tense "wanted" for proper temporal agreement with the rest of the narrative.

1. "like → enjoy"
While "like" is grammatically correct, "enjoy" is more appropriate when describing hobbies and activities that bring satisfaction. "Like" is a more casual and general term, while "enjoy" better conveys the active pleasure and engagement that comes with pursuing hobbies.

2. "home plants → houseplants"
"Home plants" is not the standard term in English. "Houseplants" is the correct compound word used to describe plants grown indoors. This is a specific term that accurately describes plants kept inside a home, whereas "home plants" is an awkward literal translation.

3. "growing betta fish → keeping betta fish"
While we "grow" plants, we don't "grow" fish as pets. The correct verb for taking care of fish as pets is "keeping." This reflects the nature of the hobby - maintaining and caring for the fish rather than breeding or raising them commercially.

4. "found → discovered"
"Found" suggests stumbling upon something by chance. "Discovered" better conveys the process of actively exploring and developing new interests. It implies a more intentional process of self-discovery and aligns better with the context of pursuing personal interests.

5. "hobby → hobbies"
The singular "hobby" implies having just one activity, but the context shows multiple interests. The plural "hobbies" correctly reflects that the speaker had no leisure activities at all during their twenties.

6. "naturally began to remember → began to rediscover"
The original phrase "naturally began to remember" is awkward and implies these interests were forgotten memories. "Began to rediscover" better captures the process of reconnecting with interests and desires that were previously set aside, not forgotten. The word "rediscover" specifically conveys the idea of finding again something that was once known but had been neglected.

1. "one vegetable → one vegetable plant"
The noun "vegetable" alone is incomplete in this context. We need to add "plant" to clarify that we're talking about a growing plant, not just the vegetable itself. This makes it parallel with "ornamental plants" in the same sentence.

2. Added comma after "At first"
A comma is required after introductory phrases like "At first" to properly separate them from the main clause. This follows the standard English punctuation rule for introductory phrases.

3. "noticed → discovered"
"Noticed" suggests a simple observation, which understates the experience being described. "Discovered" better conveys the process of learning about and coming to appreciate something new, implying a deeper level of understanding and appreciation.

4. "goodness → benefits"
"Goodness" is too vague and informal in this context. "Benefits" is more precise and better conveys the specific positive aspects of having houseplants. It's the standard term used when discussing the advantages of something.

5. "it is → it was"
Since the speaker is referring to a past realization that occurred after quitting their job, we need the past tense "was" to maintain proper temporal consistency with the rest of the narrative.

6. "have → had"
The verb needs to be in the past tense to match the time reference established by "it was." This maintains proper sequence of tenses, as we're describing a past state that existed when the speaker made their discovery about houseplants.

7. A period was added at the end of the sentence. Every complete sentence should end with appropriate punctuation.

1. "juwel → jewel"
The original spelling "juwel" is incorrect. The correct English spelling is "jewel." This is the standard spelling for this type of orchid, named for its jewel-like appearance.

2. "orchid → orchids"
When making a general recommendation about a type of plant, we use the plural form. This indicates we're talking about the category of plants rather than a specific plant, especially when followed by "especially" and a specific variety.

3. "They doesn't → They don't"
The original uses incorrect subject-verb agreement. With the plural subject "they," we must use the plural form of the auxiliary verb "don't." "Doesn't" is only used with singular subjects (he/she/it).

4. "so much → much"
"So much" is redundant and informal in this context. "Much" alone is sufficient and more natural when describing quantity. The intensifier "so" is unnecessary and makes the sentence less precise.

5. Removed "so much" and placed "much" before "water"
In English, the quantifier "much" should come before the noun it modifies. The original word order was incorrect. The natural English pattern is "don't need much water" rather than "don't need water much."

6. "becomes → become"
The original uses incorrect subject-verb agreement. With the plural subject "they," we need the plural form of the verb "become." The singular "becomes" is only used with singular subjects.

7. "google them → look them up"
While "google" has become a common verb, "look them up" is more formal and inclusive, as it doesn't specify a particular search engine. It's also the more professional way to suggest researching something.

1. "get Calathea → get a Calathea"
The original phrase lacks the indefinite article "a" which is required in English when referring to a single, countable item. When mentioning a specific plant variety for the first time, we need the indefinite article to introduce it properly into the discourse.

2. Added comma after "Sanderiana"
A comma is required here because what follows is a non-restrictive relative clause (which has pink lines). Non-restrictive clauses provide additional information that is not essential to the meaning of the sentence and must be set off by commas. This follows the standard rule for punctuating non-restrictive relative clauses in English.

3,4. "don't need sunlight so much → don't require much sunlight"
The original phrase uses an awkward word order and informal construction. The verb "require" is more formal and appropriate than "need" when discussing plant care requirements. Additionally, in English, quantifiers like "much" should precede the noun they modify. The construction "so much" is removed as it's unnecessarily casual and imprecise.

5. "If I can move → If I could move"
The original uses the present tense "can" in a hypothetical situation, which is incorrect. In conditional sentences expressing hypothetical situations, we use the past tense "could" in the if-clause (the condition). This follows the second conditional structure used for hypothetical or unlikely situations in the present/future.

6. "house with garden → house with a garden"
The original omits the necessary indefinite article "a" before "garden." In English, when referring to a single, countable noun (garden) in this context, we need the indefinite article. This follows the basic rule of article usage in English.

7. "I want → I would want"
The original uses the simple present tense, which doesn't match the hypothetical nature of the condition. Since we're describing what would happen in a hypothetical situation (moving to a house with a garden), we need to use "would" in the main clause to complete the second conditional structure. This maintains proper grammatical consistency with the "if" clause.