The data set I chose to review is the St. Louis monthly seasonal temperatures since 1874. It does not have a credited author, but the web address is a .gov meaning the author is a government agency. If that is to be true, they are also the source of the data as they most likely researched and recorded the data themselves. I think the data has been compiled for recordkeeping and to observe for any possible changes or irregularities. Climate change is an obvious motivation to see if indeed temperatures have been rising because of climate change. The data does not elaborate on how it has been used. I would assume it has been used by scientists and researchers to support the reality mankind is increasingly warming the planet. The format is entirely data columns and tables. The data is structured very straightforwardly, conveying it is entirely measurements and mathematics. It may be structured that way to make it easier for other researchers, but anyone who needs the data, to pull from it for the use of sources. In general, it is structured for easy viewing and access. The effect this structure has on how the data can be used is ease of access to show the public temperatures have been rising over time. This data set has no description from the creator on how it was measured and calculated. This choice may have more negative consequences than anticipated. If the data does not have details on its measurement and calculation, then it may be open for scrutiny. The argument for untrustworthiness is opened if the data does not provide the calculations and simply wants any viewer to trust the calculations were correct and precise. The benefit of the government being the creator of this data is the absence of profit. In other words, this data is not available for other individuals to profit from, but to simply exist to inform the public. The government may also want this data to be public to inspire action against climate change. I would use this data for that purpose exactly.