I hate questions like that. I THINK I know what the examiner was probably looking for--that "new-style" technique uses more "fulcrum" -type movements than old, because (he/she believes) we tend to emphasize the two-footed independent leg steering rotary mechanism more these days than in the past, when the upper body played a bigger role in turning (rotation, counter-rotation, blocking pole plants). When you're balanced exclusively on one ski, especially if the other ski isn't even on the snow, the so-called fulcrum mechanism isn't even an option--it REQUIRES enough weight on the other ski to provide the resistance needed to turn the one against it, instead of against the upper body.
But holy smokes--that answer begs a LOT of questions! Do YOU believe that "old-style"--done right--did not involve the fulcrum mechanism? If so, that's quite a slap in the face of Georges Joubert, arguably the king of describing at least the recent "old style" (by which I mean the age of Stenmark). Joubert was probably the originator of the term "fulcrum turn"!
The question assumes that technique has actually changed--which is itself debatable. I, for one, do not believe that there actually is a clear "straight ski technique," distinct from "today's" "shaped-ski" technique. (For one thing, "old" skis did have sidecut, and all skis have some kind of "shape.") When I first skied on a pair of early deep-sidecut skis, my reaction was that they finaly allowed me to do what I'd always been trying to do--but better and easier. I prefer to think that opportunities have increased as equipment, race tactics, and understanding have evolved, and that in many ways, today's equipment has simply made what has always been good technique more accessible to more people. Again--Georges Joubert emphasized "fulcrum" as a highly desirable rotary mechanism long before "shaped" skis and so-called "new-style technique" came around.
Yes, today's skis respond very well to independent leg steering (which is what the fulcrum mechanism refers to, although you'll find an enormous amount of misunderstanding of this fact, and a lot of wildly varying definitions of the term "fulcrum.") Independent leg steering is the rotary mechanism that defines contemporary skiing. But do you believe that the upper-body mechanisms (rotation, counter-rotation, and blocking pole plant) are unimportant today? If your examiner believes this, he/she should have his/her head examined.
So the right--but perhaps politically and tactically dangerous in an exam situation--answer would be to ask your examiner first to explain what he/she means by "old style technique," "new style technique," and "fulcrum." How old is "old"? New style technique for accomplishing what? (Intent dictates technique. No movement is categorically obsolete. There is no bad technique--although there are bad habits!) And what definition of "fulcrum" do you subscribe to?
Perhaps the second-best reply, and better tactics in an exam, would be something along the lines of, "well, as I define the term 'fulcrum,' which is [your definition here], it is [or is not, if your definiton differs from mine] the primary rotary mechanism of the basic, modern (i.e. 'Center Line') offensive directional-control turn." Go farther, if you like: "The 'old-style' Arlberg technique of the French was based on upper body rotation. The 'old-style' Austrians emphasized counter-rotation of the upper body. Today's basic offensive steered turns (to differentiate such turns from the many other important movement patterns and intents of skiing) involve primarily independent leg steering as their rotary mechanism, which is what I understand the 'fulcrum mechanism' to mean, according to the definition in PSIA's ATM Teaching Concepts manual of 1980--the last manual to use the term that I'm aware of...." I dare your examiner to argue with that!
Your examiner knows full well that "fulcrum" is a confusing term, "old-style" in itself, with many different definitions. He knows that his own colleagues will disagree among themselves--and with him. He should not, in my opinion, even use this term, unless he is willing to explain his own definition. Most examiners will gladly accept your request to clarify the question. Unfortunately, there are still a few remaining examiners who are the "old style," who demand that you share their personal definition of an obscure term. It is these examiners who are obsolete, and who have outlived their usefulness!
That may not help--sorry!
While I object to the question, discussing its various components (i.e. the fulcrum mechanism--what is it? what has changed? what hasn't?) is a worthwhile, useful exercise. The question itself is really just a thinly disguised way of asking "do you see skiing the same way I do, and subscribe to the same beliefs and definitions of obscure terms as I?" Hardly a legitimate requirement for passing an exam. And you can tell 'em I said so!