Read the following excerpt from levitt and dubner’s freakonomics. the data also show that smaller offices are more honest than big ones. an office with a few dozen employees generally outpays by 3 to 5 percent an office with a few hundred employees. this may seem counterintuitive. in a bigger office, a bigger crowd is bound to convene around the bagel table, providing more witnesses to make sure you drop your money in the box. but in the big-office/small-office comparison, bagel crime seems to mirror street crime. there is far less street crime per capita in rural areas than in cities, in large part because a rural criminal is more likely to be known (and therefore caught). also, a smaller community tends to exert greater social incentives against crime, the main one being shame. which idea from this paragraph supports the claim that “smaller offices are more honest than big ones”?

The idea that supports the claim that "Smaller offices are more honest than big ones" is the one mirroring offices to street crime.

Quote: 'There is far less street crime per capita in rural areas than in cities, in large part because a rural criminal is more likely to be known (and therefore caught). Also, a smaller community tends to exert greater social incentives against crime, the main one being shame.'

This means that in smaller places people tend to know everyone who happens to be around, as well as the people to whom this person may be related. This situation makes it easier for people to identify a possible criminal and therefore caught them, using shame as a weapon to punish them. Keeping up with the analogy, a person found guilty of a crime may be kicked out of a small town the same way they would be fired from a small office, which leads to the conclussion that smaller (places) offices remain more honest than big ones, since all criminals are dismissed.

i may be wrong but i think your answer is flashback